Comments on: New Law Cripples Small and Independent Children’s Toy and Clothing Makers http://www.theagitator.com/2009/02/12/new-law-cripples-small-and-independent-childrens-toy-and-clothing-makers/ It rankles me when somebody tries to tell somebody what to do. Fri, 10 Feb 2012 20:44:34 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2 By: LetEmEatLead http://www.theagitator.com/2009/02/12/new-law-cripples-small-and-independent-childrens-toy-and-clothing-makers/comment-page-2/#comment-412773 LetEmEatLead Mon, 23 Aug 2010 06:36:41 +0000 http://www.theagitator.com/?p=12099#comment-412773 BOGART Y'know, kids, somewhere in this century the U.S. government got turned around. It's their job to work for you. ... And don't get nervous -- the only bad break you could get is if the President turns out to be a Kenyan, or a commie. ALAN With our luck he'll probably be both. BOGART Governments are simple. I never met one who didn't understand a slap-down in an election, or a slug from a 45. [with apologies to "Play It Again, Sam"] BOGART
Y’know, kids, somewhere in this century the U.S. government got turned around. It’s their job to work for you. … And don’t get nervous — the only bad break you could get is if the President turns out to be a Kenyan, or a commie.

ALAN
With our luck he’ll probably be both.

BOGART
Governments are simple. I never met one who didn’t understand a slap-down in an election, or a slug from a 45.

[with apologies to "Play It Again, Sam"]

]]> By: Backhanded surprises « Blunt Object http://www.theagitator.com/2009/02/12/new-law-cripples-small-and-independent-childrens-toy-and-clothing-makers/comment-page-2/#comment-349577 Backhanded surprises « Blunt Object Mon, 31 Aug 2009 02:49:59 +0000 http://www.theagitator.com/?p=12099#comment-349577 [...] regulatory capture in market regulation are surprised.  Consider for example the pro-crotchfruit Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act, rushed into legislation as a kneejerk reaction to teh ebil chemicalz found in children’s [...] [...] regulatory capture in market regulation are surprised.  Consider for example the pro-crotchfruit Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act, rushed into legislation as a kneejerk reaction to teh ebil chemicalz found in children’s [...]

]]> By: The Agitator » Blog Archive » Wow. http://www.theagitator.com/2009/02/12/new-law-cripples-small-and-independent-childrens-toy-and-clothing-makers/comment-page-1/#comment-349458 The Agitator » Blog Archive » Wow. Sun, 30 Aug 2009 23:32:26 +0000 http://www.theagitator.com/?p=12099#comment-349458 [...] Last February I linked to a piece by Tim Carney explaining how the big toy companies had ratcheted up their lobbying efforts in favor of the bill. Carney wrote: [...] [...] Last February I linked to a piece by Tim Carney explaining how the big toy companies had ratcheted up their lobbying efforts in favor of the bill. Carney wrote: [...]

]]> By: Mr Nobody http://www.theagitator.com/2009/02/12/new-law-cripples-small-and-independent-childrens-toy-and-clothing-makers/comment-page-1/#comment-328970 Mr Nobody Mon, 27 Jul 2009 23:50:19 +0000 http://www.theagitator.com/?p=12099#comment-328970 It will be fun to witness when the people get enough of Washington's shit. It will be fun to witness when the people get enough of Washington’s shit.

]]> By: March Links: Stimulus Madness, Grants.gov, Health Care and More! http://www.theagitator.com/2009/02/12/new-law-cripples-small-and-independent-childrens-toy-and-clothing-makers/comment-page-1/#comment-253831 March Links: Stimulus Madness, Grants.gov, Health Care and More! Mon, 23 Mar 2009 03:18:29 +0000 http://www.theagitator.com/?p=12099#comment-253831 [...] More on unintended consequences and kids in “New Law Cripples Small and Independent Children’s Toy and Clothing Makers:” The gist is that the new regs impose debilitating new testing requirements on anyone who [...] [...] More on unintended consequences and kids in “New Law Cripples Small and Independent Children’s Toy and Clothing Makers:” The gist is that the new regs impose debilitating new testing requirements on anyone who [...]

]]> By: CPSIA chronicles, February 19 http://www.theagitator.com/2009/02/12/new-law-cripples-small-and-independent-childrens-toy-and-clothing-makers/comment-page-1/#comment-243166 CPSIA chronicles, February 19 Thu, 19 Feb 2009 21:21:37 +0000 http://www.theagitator.com/?p=12099#comment-243166 [...] close ally PIRG, boast of having led the campaign for a maximally stringent CPSIA. Related points here (Eric Husman) and here (Deputy [...] [...] close ally PIRG, boast of having led the campaign for a maximally stringent CPSIA. Related points here (Eric Husman) and here (Deputy [...]

]]> By: CPSIA: It’s for the children! — FR33 Agents http://www.theagitator.com/2009/02/12/new-law-cripples-small-and-independent-childrens-toy-and-clothing-makers/comment-page-1/#comment-242735 CPSIA: It’s for the children! — FR33 Agents Wed, 18 Feb 2009 14:48:46 +0000 http://www.theagitator.com/?p=12099#comment-242735 [...] of FR33 Agents. Please poke around and let us know what you think. Thanks for visiting!Like Brian, Radley and Virginia, I have known about the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act for a while, but [...] [...] of FR33 Agents. Please poke around and let us know what you think. Thanks for visiting!Like Brian, Radley and Virginia, I have known about the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act for a while, but [...]

]]> By: perlhaqr http://www.theagitator.com/2009/02/12/new-law-cripples-small-and-independent-childrens-toy-and-clothing-makers/comment-page-1/#comment-241582 perlhaqr Sat, 14 Feb 2009 17:05:14 +0000 http://www.theagitator.com/?p=12099#comment-241582 Does it suck? Sure. Ultimately, though, as downvoted as I'm likely to get for saying it, this is a good thing. Contempt for the law is going to become a much more mainstream convention. Makers of handmade children's clothing tend not to be the sort of wild-eyed gunslinging anarchists that hang out here in Radley's forum. The faster it all comes down, the faster it can go back up. Does it suck? Sure.

Ultimately, though, as downvoted as I’m likely to get for saying it, this is a good thing.

Contempt for the law is going to become a much more mainstream convention. Makers of handmade children’s clothing tend not to be the sort of wild-eyed gunslinging anarchists that hang out here in Radley’s forum.

The faster it all comes down, the faster it can go back up.

]]> By: Children Clothing http://www.theagitator.com/2009/02/12/new-law-cripples-small-and-independent-childrens-toy-and-clothing-makers/comment-page-1/#comment-241554 Children Clothing Sat, 14 Feb 2009 15:07:53 +0000 http://www.theagitator.com/?p=12099#comment-241554 <strong>Children Clothing...</strong> Longtime reader Bronwyn Ramey told me months about the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act a hon [...]http://www.kidsclothmerchant.info/cienta-kids-shoes-41-088-toddleryouth-redwhite-polka-dots-footwear/ [...]... Children Clothing…

Longtime reader Bronwyn Ramey told me months about the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act a hon [...]http://www.kidsclothmerchant.info/cienta-kids-shoes-41-088-toddleryouth-redwhite-polka-dots-footwear/ [...]…

]]> By: KBCraig http://www.theagitator.com/2009/02/12/new-law-cripples-small-and-independent-childrens-toy-and-clothing-makers/comment-page-1/#comment-241491 KBCraig Sat, 14 Feb 2009 08:22:42 +0000 http://www.theagitator.com/?p=12099#comment-241491 Wow, so much for lead pellets for my 6 year old's pellet rifle. Or ammo for his .22 rifle. Wow, so much for lead pellets for my 6 year old’s pellet rifle. Or ammo for his .22 rifle.

]]> By: Kevin Carson http://www.theagitator.com/2009/02/12/new-law-cripples-small-and-independent-childrens-toy-and-clothing-makers/comment-page-1/#comment-241481 Kevin Carson Sat, 14 Feb 2009 07:26:01 +0000 http://www.theagitator.com/?p=12099#comment-241481 Bloody typical of most regulation. As Eric Husman of GrimReader blog pointed out, the small apparel manufacturer comes up with a couple dozen designs and then produces the ones that sell, on a just-in-time basis. This law essentially criminalizes that business model by imposing high testing costs on each separate design, so that the only way to make a profit is large batch production on the Sloan model. But then that's the main effect of most regulation: to criminalize low-overhead microenterprise using spare capacity of capital goods most of us own anyway. That makes it impossible simply to sell surpluses generated in the household and informal economy, or to gradually shift one's income source a bit at a time from wage labor to the household economy, at low risk and cost. No, if you want to engage in business at all, you have to lay out the capital to do it on a large scale, and then either use the capital to full capacity or go Chapter Eleven. Bloody typical of most regulation. As Eric Husman of GrimReader blog pointed out, the small apparel manufacturer comes up with a couple dozen designs and then produces the ones that sell, on a just-in-time basis. This law essentially criminalizes that business model by imposing high testing costs on each separate design, so that the only way to make a profit is large batch production on the Sloan model. But then that’s the main effect of most regulation: to criminalize low-overhead microenterprise using spare capacity of capital goods most of us own anyway. That makes it impossible simply to sell surpluses generated in the household and informal economy, or to gradually shift one’s income source a bit at a time from wage labor to the household economy, at low risk and cost. No, if you want to engage in business at all, you have to lay out the capital to do it on a large scale, and then either use the capital to full capacity or go Chapter Eleven.

]]> By: supercat http://www.theagitator.com/2009/02/12/new-law-cripples-small-and-independent-childrens-toy-and-clothing-makers/comment-page-1/#comment-241362 supercat Fri, 13 Feb 2009 23:45:45 +0000 http://www.theagitator.com/?p=12099#comment-241362 <i>Yes, I will admit that my knowledge in the chemistry and toxicity of lead is limited to what wikipedia tells me, but anyone with a toddler knows that everything will go into their mouth if you look away for a second, and yes that includes books, zippers, and other items you wouldn’t expect.</i> How much lead is going to get into a person's bloodstream from sucking on a zipper made from an alloy that contains 1% lead? Or, for that matter, 10% lead or 100% lead? If someone were to swallow an object made from metalic lead and it remained in one's stomach for a long time, the lead would eventually be dissolved sufficiently to enter the bloodstream, but--especially with objects that contain smaller amounts of lead--I would think that heaving a metal object in the stomach would generally pose far more serious concerns than the chemical properties of the lead therein. Note that chemical compounds like lead oxide are more readily absorbed into the body and thus pose a greater risk. Even there, however, there's a difference between sensible caution and paranoia. Yes, I will admit that my knowledge in the chemistry and toxicity of lead is limited to what wikipedia tells me, but anyone with a toddler knows that everything will go into their mouth if you look away for a second, and yes that includes books, zippers, and other items you wouldn’t expect.

How much lead is going to get into a person’s bloodstream from sucking on a zipper made from an alloy that contains 1% lead? Or, for that matter, 10% lead or 100% lead? If someone were to swallow an object made from metalic lead and it remained in one’s stomach for a long time, the lead would eventually be dissolved sufficiently to enter the bloodstream, but–especially with objects that contain smaller amounts of lead–I would think that heaving a metal object in the stomach would generally pose far more serious concerns than the chemical properties of the lead therein.

Note that chemical compounds like lead oxide are more readily absorbed into the body and thus pose a greater risk. Even there, however, there’s a difference between sensible caution and paranoia.

]]> By: Eric H http://www.theagitator.com/2009/02/12/new-law-cripples-small-and-independent-childrens-toy-and-clothing-makers/comment-page-1/#comment-241331 Eric H Fri, 13 Feb 2009 21:57:21 +0000 http://www.theagitator.com/?p=12099#comment-241331 While I have been pursuing this for months, the increase in lobbying by companies like Mattel appears to be more defensive than offensive. The real forces behind this law have been the Nader groups, Public Citizen and US PIRG. They have appeared at every single hearing, they have been cheerleading the law since its inception, they have opposed any attempt to make it reasonable (and enorceable), they have been running a FUD campaign against anybody and everybody who raises questions about it. All we have been asking for has been a few tweaks to the law so that the CPSC is not faced with an endless cycle of enforcement, increased prices and decreased consumer choice, market entry by the clueless, repeat. The lead limits were 600 ppm before this law, so all the CPSIA has done is require testing of safe clothing and toys. But the costs of testing (including the logistics) are so high that it is killing the alternatives to the mass producers that got the media attention that led to this in the first place. Congress has decided to throw the baby out with the bathwater "for the children". The Fashion-Incubator.com website and forums began tracking this long before Walter Olson discovered it, and now Kathleen has been targeted by some of the Congressional supporters and "consumer's" groups. Those groups continue to lie about testing costs, but never seem to be able to produce actual quotes. We have repeatedly asked for them, since we could send many customers their way. Incidentally, the NRDC, which opposed the CPSC General Counsel rulling that the phthalate limits should not be applied retroactively in a lawsuit, is selling private label children's clothing. Private label is specifically cited in the law as one form of manufacturing. NRDC insists, however, that they are not a manufacturer. This is just one of the many bits of evidence that these people have not even read the law (even as they claim that we have not). Not only are they selling children's clothing, but they have used the trademarked name "Onesie" (owned by Gerber): <a>https://secure.nrdconline.org/08/nrdc_simplesteps</a> Go ahead, write them and ask them if they have tested it and ask if you can get a copy of the GCC. Lotsa luck. While I have been pursuing this for months, the increase in lobbying by companies like Mattel appears to be more defensive than offensive. The real forces behind this law have been the Nader groups, Public Citizen and US PIRG. They have appeared at every single hearing, they have been cheerleading the law since its inception, they have opposed any attempt to make it reasonable (and enorceable), they have been running a FUD campaign against anybody and everybody who raises questions about it. All we have been asking for has been a few tweaks to the law so that the CPSC is not faced with an endless cycle of enforcement, increased prices and decreased consumer choice, market entry by the clueless, repeat. The lead limits were 600 ppm before this law, so all the CPSIA has done is require testing of safe clothing and toys. But the costs of testing (including the logistics) are so high that it is killing the alternatives to the mass producers that got the media attention that led to this in the first place. Congress has decided to throw the baby out with the bathwater “for the children”.

The Fashion-Incubator.com website and forums began tracking this long before Walter Olson discovered it, and now Kathleen has been targeted by some of the Congressional supporters and “consumer’s” groups. Those groups continue to lie about testing costs, but never seem to be able to produce actual quotes. We have repeatedly asked for them, since we could send many customers their way.

Incidentally, the NRDC, which opposed the CPSC General Counsel rulling that the phthalate limits should not be applied retroactively in a lawsuit, is selling private label children’s clothing. Private label is specifically cited in the law as one form of manufacturing. NRDC insists, however, that they are not a manufacturer. This is just one of the many bits of evidence that these people have not even read the law (even as they claim that we have not). Not only are they selling children’s clothing, but they have used the trademarked name “Onesie” (owned by Gerber):

https://secure.nrdconline.org/08/nrdc_simplesteps

Go ahead, write them and ask them if they have tested it and ask if you can get a copy of the GCC. Lotsa luck.

]]> By: CPSIA chronicles, February 13 http://www.theagitator.com/2009/02/12/new-law-cripples-small-and-independent-childrens-toy-and-clothing-makers/comment-page-1/#comment-241234 CPSIA chronicles, February 13 Fri, 13 Feb 2009 18:05:14 +0000 http://www.theagitator.com/?p=12099#comment-241234 [...] Radley Balko blogs on the law at The Agitator (and also has kind words for my coverage, for which thanks). And Katherine [...] [...] Radley Balko blogs on the law at The Agitator (and also has kind words for my coverage, for which thanks). And Katherine [...]

]]> By: Luci D http://www.theagitator.com/2009/02/12/new-law-cripples-small-and-independent-childrens-toy-and-clothing-makers/comment-page-1/#comment-241199 Luci D Fri, 13 Feb 2009 16:33:38 +0000 http://www.theagitator.com/?p=12099#comment-241199 I have a friend who's sole means of income is from making and selliing toys intended for ages 3+. He handmakes them all using craft foam, wiggle eyes, tongue depressors and such like, but according to the new law, even though all of his component parts are safe, the end product has to be tested in toto, which he cannot afford. In this struggling economy, for the last few months he has barely been able to stay afloat as it is. If he doesn't find a job in the next few weeks, he'll be homeless. I know another woman who makes the cutest handpainted clothing for infants. She uses clothes commonly sold at Toy-R-Us and non-lead based paint, but she's now in the same situation because it has to be tested AFTER the safe product has been applied to the safe product. Thanks Mattel. Thanks Congress. Another fine example of the abuse of money and power. I have a friend who’s sole means of income is from making and selliing toys intended for ages 3+. He handmakes them all using craft foam, wiggle eyes, tongue depressors and such like, but according to the new law, even though all of his component parts are safe, the end product has to be tested in toto, which he cannot afford. In this struggling economy, for the last few months he has barely been able to stay afloat as it is. If he doesn’t find a job in the next few weeks, he’ll be homeless. I know another woman who makes the cutest handpainted clothing for infants. She uses clothes commonly sold at Toy-R-Us and non-lead based paint, but she’s now in the same situation because it has to be tested AFTER the safe product has been applied to the safe product. Thanks Mattel. Thanks Congress. Another fine example of the abuse of money and power.

]]> By: Bronwyn http://www.theagitator.com/2009/02/12/new-law-cripples-small-and-independent-childrens-toy-and-clothing-makers/comment-page-1/#comment-241194 Bronwyn Fri, 13 Feb 2009 16:09:49 +0000 http://www.theagitator.com/?p=12099#comment-241194 haha! those sideways carat thingies disappeared! *sigh* Can't win for losing, today haha! those sideways carat thingies disappeared! *sigh* Can’t win for losing, today

]]> By: Bronwyn http://www.theagitator.com/2009/02/12/new-law-cripples-small-and-independent-childrens-toy-and-clothing-makers/comment-page-1/#comment-241193 Bronwyn Fri, 13 Feb 2009 16:09:11 +0000 http://www.theagitator.com/?p=12099#comment-241193 Oh, I forgot that we use [] here, instead of Oh, I forgot that we use [] here, instead of

]]> By: David http://www.theagitator.com/2009/02/12/new-law-cripples-small-and-independent-childrens-toy-and-clothing-makers/comment-page-1/#comment-241190 David Fri, 13 Feb 2009 16:01:58 +0000 http://www.theagitator.com/?p=12099#comment-241190 <i>The caveat, though, is that these exemptions aren’t enforceable. Any state AG with a bee in his bonnet can decide to go after somebody.</i> And we've seen the danger of giving those bastards anything that they can freely interpret. Bronwyn, you can use this code [a href="URL">Screen Text Here</a] to post links, just use the the "" brackets on the outside. The caveat, though, is that these exemptions aren’t enforceable. Any state AG with a bee in his bonnet can decide to go after somebody.

And we’ve seen the danger of giving those bastards anything that they can freely interpret.

Bronwyn, you can use this code [a href="URL">Screen Text Here</a] to post links, just use the the “” brackets on the outside.

]]> By: Bronwyn http://www.theagitator.com/2009/02/12/new-law-cripples-small-and-independent-childrens-toy-and-clothing-makers/comment-page-1/#comment-241174 Bronwyn Fri, 13 Feb 2009 14:42:24 +0000 http://www.theagitator.com/?p=12099#comment-241174 Ugh. Just click my name, the thread is there. Ugh. Just click my name, the thread is there.

]]> By: Bronwyn http://www.theagitator.com/2009/02/12/new-law-cripples-small-and-independent-childrens-toy-and-clothing-makers/comment-page-1/#comment-241173 Bronwyn Fri, 13 Feb 2009 14:41:36 +0000 http://www.theagitator.com/?p=12099#comment-241173 I linked to this article from the etsy forums. I hope you don't mind, Radley. I can't figure out how to do the trackback-looking thingie, though. Here's the <a>thread</a>. /hopes her html works I linked to this article from the etsy forums. I hope you don’t mind, Radley.

I can’t figure out how to do the trackback-looking thingie, though.

Here’s the thread.

/hopes her html works

]]>